Meridian Components: An Acquisition Proposed Without a Decision Framework
Meridian Components, a 900-employee Tier-2 automotive supplier, has grown 12% annually on a single customer that now represents 61% of revenue. That customer has announced it will dual-source all programs by 2027. Meridian's CEO wants to acquire a small electronics firm to enter a new market, but the board's strategy committee meets only twice a year, the five-year plan was last revised 19 months ago, and there is no process for evaluating acquisitions beyond the CEO's business case. Working capital covers 47 days. The CFO argues for paying down debt instead. Two directors were appointed by the founding family and rarely dissent.
1. Which two governance weaknesses most distort this decision, and why does each matter in this specific situation?
Read the worked answer
Rank the weaknesses by their effect on decision quality, not by how easy they are to fix.
No evaluation criteria and no independent challenge for acquisitions. With the business case written solely by the CEO, the board can only accept or reject; it cannot test. The decisive question - does electronics capability actually reduce the dual-sourcing exposure, or is this a diversification bet dressed as a strategic response? - never gets asked. Fix: written investment criteria (strategic fit, integration risk, payback period, maximum capital at risk) plus an independent commercial or valuation review above a threshold.
A stale plan and an infrequent strategy forum. A plan revised 19 months ago and reviewed twice a year cannot frame a decision triggered by a customer announcement. The board is reacting, so urgency substitutes for analysis and the deal timeline sets the pace of governance.
The family-appointed directors matter less as a structural flaw than as a symptom: dissent has no scheduled outlet. Note also that the concentration data justifies strategic action - it does not justify this action, and treating the threat as a mandate is itself a reasoning error.
2. The CEO asks for 'approval in principle' three weeks before the next full board meeting, with diligence funded immediately. How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
Separate the decision to investigate from the decision to buy. They carry different risk, reversibility, and approval requirements, and conflating them is how boards lose the option to say no.
Recommend authorizing a capped diligence budget - for example $150k - with named stage gates, no exclusivity, and a written report to the full board before any binding offer. Conditions: independent review of the target's commercial position; an explicit statement of the strategic gap the deal addresses; a funding plan that respects 47 days of working capital; and a declared ceiling on capital at risk that the CEO cannot exceed without the full board.
Why refuse the wording: 'approval in principle' is a commitment device. Once signaled internally and to the target, the board faces reputational and political pressure to proceed, and rejection becomes costly - a textbook escalation of commitment. Diligence spend is cheap and reversible; a signed offer is neither.
Also insist the CFO's alternative be scored against the same criteria with the same evidence standard. Debt reduction is a legitimate comparator, not an obstruction, and the board should see both options ranked.